|
|
On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
better approach:
1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default for new
XP-Pro installs), or
2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out how
to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used TweakUI)]?
Why is one method better than the other?
Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers to
where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a relatively
detailed manner).
|
|
Program installs should be done with an account that has Administrator
permissions.
User accounts with reduced privileges will not have sufficient
permissions for installation. In fact, installs will typically fail in a
non-privileged account.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
HenriK wrote:
[Quoted Text] > On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
> better approach:
>
> 1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default for new
> XP-Pro installs), or
>
> 2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out how
> to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used TweakUI)]?
>
> Why is one method better than the other?
>
> Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers to
> where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a relatively
> detailed manner).
|
|
My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was trying
to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to installing
applications as Administrator as compared to installing applications as
a user with Administrator permissions.
Since I am the only user of the PC in question, it isn't clear to me why
I would want to install applications as a user (with Administrator
permissions). My feeling is that there is something I haven't
understood. Otherwise, why would Microsoft go to the trouble of hiding
the Administrator log-on.
Thanks, in advance, for any insight.
By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply messages?
In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at the end of the
thread?
Leonard Grey wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Program installs should be done with an account that has Administrator
> permissions.
>
> User accounts with reduced privileges will not have sufficient
> permissions for installation. In fact, installs will typically fail in a
> non-privileged account.
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> HenriK wrote:
>> On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
>> better approach:
>>
>> 1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default for
>> new XP-Pro installs), or
>>
>> 2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out
>> how to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used
>> TweakUI)]?
>>
>> Why is one method better than the other?
>>
>> Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers to
>> where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a relatively
>> detailed manner).
|
|
The final result is the same, because in both cases you are running the
installer with Administrator credentials.
Personally, I install software from an Administrator account. I prefer
this for several reasons:
In an Administrator account I can temporarily disable the security
software before the install.
In my Administrator account I can backup my system partition before an
install.
If I encounter a problem during or after installer, in an Administrator
account I have easy access to Windows troubleshooting tools.
I could accomplish the above by repeatedly invoking Run As, but that
would be an inconvenience.
If you are the sole user of your computer you should have one
Administrator account and one User account. Do /not/ use Windows'
built-in Administrator as your Administrator account.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
HenriK wrote:
[Quoted Text] > My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was trying
> to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to installing
> applications as Administrator as compared to installing applications as
> a user with Administrator permissions.
>
> Since I am the only user of the PC in question, it isn't clear to me why
> I would want to install applications as a user (with Administrator
> permissions). My feeling is that there is something I haven't
> understood. Otherwise, why would Microsoft go to the trouble of hiding
> the Administrator log-on.
>
> Thanks, in advance, for any insight.
>
> By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply messages?
> In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at the end of the
> thread?
>
>
> Leonard Grey wrote:
>> Program installs should be done with an account that has Administrator
>> permissions.
>>
>> User accounts with reduced privileges will not have sufficient
>> permissions for installation. In fact, installs will typically fail in
>> a non-privileged account.
>> ---
>> Leonard Grey
>> Errare humanum est
>>
>> HenriK wrote:
>>> On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
>>> better approach:
>>>
>>> 1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default for
>>> new XP-Pro installs), or
>>>
>>> 2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out
>>> how to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used
>>> TweakUI)]?
>>>
>>> Why is one method better than the other?
>>>
>>> Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers to
>>> where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a relatively
>>> detailed manner).
|
|
Thanks for the insight on my original query. It was the kind of thing I
was looking for.
Your last sentence - "Do /not/ use Windows' built-in Administrator as
your Administrator account" - leaves me a bit confused, however. When I
installed XP-Pro, it hid what I thought was the Administrator account
that I had become familiar with using W2K-Pro. I used TweakUI to make
the XP-Pro Administrator log on visible. Also, at the time of XP-Pro
installation, the XP-Pro installer prompted me into what is apparently
the XP-Pro default mode of immediately creating a user account that
appears to have most, if not all, of the Administrator permissions.
When you advise me not to use "... Windows' built-in Administrator as
your Administrator account", which account are you talking about? The
Administrator account I uncovered with Tweak UI or the XP-Pro user
account the XP-Pro installer prompted me to create as part of the XP-Pro
installation process? Also, why the warning?
Thanks, in advance, for clarification.
Leonard Grey wrote:
[Quoted Text] > The final result is the same, because in both cases you are running the
> installer with Administrator credentials.
>
> Personally, I install software from an Administrator account. I prefer
> this for several reasons:
>
> In an Administrator account I can temporarily disable the security
> software before the install.
>
> In my Administrator account I can backup my system partition before an
> install.
>
> If I encounter a problem during or after installer, in an Administrator
> account I have easy access to Windows troubleshooting tools.
>
> I could accomplish the above by repeatedly invoking Run As, but that
> would be an inconvenience.
>
> If you are the sole user of your computer you should have one
> Administrator account and one User account. Do /not/ use Windows'
> built-in Administrator as your Administrator account.
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> HenriK wrote:
>> My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was trying
>> to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to installing
>> applications as Administrator as compared to installing applications
>> as a user with Administrator permissions.
>>
>> Since I am the only user of the PC in question, it isn't clear to me
>> why I would want to install applications as a user (with Administrator
>> permissions). My feeling is that there is something I haven't
>> understood. Otherwise, why would Microsoft go to the trouble of
>> hiding the Administrator log-on.
>>
>> Thanks, in advance, for any insight.
>>
>> By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply messages?
>> In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at the end of
>> the thread?
>>
>>
>> Leonard Grey wrote:
>>> Program installs should be done with an account that has
>>> Administrator permissions.
>>>
>>> User accounts with reduced privileges will not have sufficient
>>> permissions for installation. In fact, installs will typically fail
>>> in a non-privileged account.
>>> ---
>>> Leonard Grey
>>> Errare humanum est
>>>
>>> HenriK wrote:
>>>> On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
>>>> better approach:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default for
>>>> new XP-Pro installs), or
>>>>
>>>> 2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out
>>>> how to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used
>>>> TweakUI)]?
>>>>
>>>> Why is one method better than the other?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers to
>>>> where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a relatively
>>>> detailed manner).
|
|
The built-in Administrator is a /system/ account created by Windows. It
is distinct from a /user/ account that you create that has Administrator
permissions.
The built-in Administrator is your lifeline when you cannot access the
computer with a normal user account.
If you use the built-in Administrator for day to day computing you will
have no recourse should it become corrupted or inaccessible.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
HenriK wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Thanks for the insight on my original query. It was the kind of thing I
> was looking for.
>
> Your last sentence - "Do /not/ use Windows' built-in Administrator as
> your Administrator account" - leaves me a bit confused, however. When I
> installed XP-Pro, it hid what I thought was the Administrator account
> that I had become familiar with using W2K-Pro. I used TweakUI to make
> the XP-Pro Administrator log on visible. Also, at the time of XP-Pro
> installation, the XP-Pro installer prompted me into what is apparently
> the XP-Pro default mode of immediately creating a user account that
> appears to have most, if not all, of the Administrator permissions.
>
> When you advise me not to use "... Windows' built-in Administrator as
> your Administrator account", which account are you talking about? The
> Administrator account I uncovered with Tweak UI or the XP-Pro user
> account the XP-Pro installer prompted me to create as part of the XP-Pro
> installation process? Also, why the warning?
>
> Thanks, in advance, for clarification.
>
>
> Leonard Grey wrote:
>> The final result is the same, because in both cases you are running
>> the installer with Administrator credentials.
>>
>> Personally, I install software from an Administrator account. I prefer
>> this for several reasons:
>>
>> In an Administrator account I can temporarily disable the security
>> software before the install.
>>
>> In my Administrator account I can backup my system partition before an
>> install.
>>
>> If I encounter a problem during or after installer, in an
>> Administrator account I have easy access to Windows troubleshooting
>> tools.
>>
>> I could accomplish the above by repeatedly invoking Run As, but that
>> would be an inconvenience.
>>
>> If you are the sole user of your computer you should have one
>> Administrator account and one User account. Do /not/ use Windows'
>> built-in Administrator as your Administrator account.
>> ---
>> Leonard Grey
>> Errare humanum est
>>
>> HenriK wrote:
>>> My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was
>>> trying to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to
>>> installing applications as Administrator as compared to installing
>>> applications as a user with Administrator permissions.
>>>
>>> Since I am the only user of the PC in question, it isn't clear to me
>>> why I would want to install applications as a user (with
>>> Administrator permissions). My feeling is that there is something I
>>> haven't understood. Otherwise, why would Microsoft go to the trouble
>>> of hiding the Administrator log-on.
>>>
>>> Thanks, in advance, for any insight.
>>>
>>> By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply
>>> messages? In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at
>>> the end of the thread?
>>>
>>>
>>> Leonard Grey wrote:
>>>> Program installs should be done with an account that has
>>>> Administrator permissions.
>>>>
>>>> User accounts with reduced privileges will not have sufficient
>>>> permissions for installation. In fact, installs will typically fail
>>>> in a non-privileged account.
>>>> ---
>>>> Leonard Grey
>>>> Errare humanum est
>>>>
>>>> HenriK wrote:
>>>>> On a new, clean, single-user XP-Pro SP2 installation, which is the
>>>>> better approach:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Install applications as a user (which seems to be the default
>>>>> for new XP-Pro installs), or
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Install applications as administrator [once you have figured out
>>>>> how to make the hidden XP-Pro administrator log-in visible (I used
>>>>> TweakUI)]?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is one method better than the other?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for advice, insight, suggestions, or pointers
>>>>> to where this issue may be already addressed (hopefully in a
>>>>> relatively detailed manner).
|
|
HenriK wrote:
[Quoted Text] > My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was trying
> to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to installing
> applications as Administrator as compared to installing applications as
> a user with Administrator permissions.
>
No, it shouldn't make any difference, whatsoever, unless you're dealing
with a peculiarity of some specific, poorly coded application.
I've encountered a very small sampling of installation routines
that had actually been written so that they would work *only* when run
from the built-in Administrator account, and then only if the account
hadn't been renamed, as is a common security practice.
In these instances, I could not install these applications using a
domain administrative account, nor using the renamed built-in
administrator account. I actually had to disconnect the machine from
the domain (as a security precaution) and rename the built-in
administrator account to "Administrator" before the installation routine
would work. Stupidest thing I've ever encountered; but some developers
simply have no concept of multiple user accounts and/or proper security.
Of course, this condition is a limitation of those specific, poorly
written applications, not the operating system. When installation
routines are properly written, there is no functional difference between
the built-in Administrator account and any other accounts that are
members of the local Administrators group.
>
> By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply messages?
> In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at the end of the
> thread?
>
>
Now you've done it; you've opened the door to a potentially long
argument. ;-}
Most users of Microsoft products have become accustomed to top-posting,
as you've done, because that's the default (and sometimes only) choice
available to them. On the other hand, long-time participants in Usenet,
and the users of other news reader applications, are more likely to
prefer bottom posting.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
|
|
HenriK wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Thanks for the insight on my original query. It was the kind of thing I
> was looking for.
>
> Your last sentence - "Do /not/ use Windows' built-in Administrator as
> your Administrator account" - leaves me a bit confused, however. When I
> installed XP-Pro, it hid what I thought was the Administrator account
> that I had become familiar with using W2K-Pro. I used TweakUI to make
> the XP-Pro Administrator log on visible. Also, at the time of XP-Pro
> installation, the XP-Pro installer prompted me into what is apparently
> the XP-Pro default mode of immediately creating a user account that
> appears to have most, if not all, of the Administrator permissions.
>
> When you advise me not to use "... Windows' built-in Administrator as
> your Administrator account", which account are you talking about? The
> Administrator account I uncovered with Tweak UI or the XP-Pro user
> account the XP-Pro installer prompted me to create as part of the XP-Pro
> installation process? Also, why the warning?
>
The built-in Administrator account was never intended to be used
for day-to-day normal use. The standard security practice is to rename
the account, set a strong password on it, and use it only to create
another account with administrative privileges for admin purposes, and a
limited account for regular use, reserving the built-in Administrator
account as a "back door" in case something corrupts your regular account(s).
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
|
|
Bruce Chambers wrote:
[Quoted Text] > HenriK wrote:
>> My apologies for not stating my query more clearly. What I was trying
>> to get at is whether there was some particular advantage to installing
>> applications as Administrator as compared to installing applications
>> as a user with Administrator permissions.
>>
>
>
> No, it shouldn't make any difference, whatsoever, unless you're
> dealing with a peculiarity of some specific, poorly coded application.
>
> I've encountered a very small sampling of installation routines that
> had actually been written so that they would work *only* when run from
> the built-in Administrator account, and then only if the account hadn't
> been renamed, as is a common security practice.
>
> In these instances, I could not install these applications using a
> domain administrative account, nor using the renamed built-in
> administrator account. I actually had to disconnect the machine from
> the domain (as a security precaution) and rename the built-in
> administrator account to "Administrator" before the installation routine
> would work. Stupidest thing I've ever encountered; but some developers
> simply have no concept of multiple user accounts and/or proper security.
>
> Of course, this condition is a limitation of those specific, poorly
> written applications, not the operating system. When installation
> routines are properly written, there is no functional difference between
> the built-in Administrator account and any other accounts that are
> members of the local Administrators group.
>
>
>>
>> By the way, what is this list's preferred position for reply messages?
>> In front of the last message (as I have done above) or at the end of
>> the thread?
>>
>>
>
> Now you've done it; you've opened the door to a potentially long
> argument. ;-}
>
> Most users of Microsoft products have become accustomed to
> top-posting, as you've done, because that's the default (and sometimes
> only) choice available to them. On the other hand, long-time
> participants in Usenet, and the users of other news reader applications,
> are more likely to prefer bottom posting.
>
>
>
Bruce --
Thanks for both comments.
|
|
HenriK wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
>
> Bruce --
>
> Thanks for both comments.
You're welcome.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
|
|
|